In a case where the boundary of a road extension project is to be set to the boundary of a set-off line arising from asphalt packing relationship, etc. between the existing road and the expanded part of the road, whether the said boundary constitutes the central line prescribed in Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (negative)

In a case where the extension of the existing two-way road is extended to the fourth line road to the nearest road, and the extension of the construction work is not yet completed, and the existing road and the newly constructed expansion road are used as the second line of one bank, using the existing road as the second line of one bank, and the newly constructed two-way road is used as the opposite bank road, such de facto boundary does not constitute the central line of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 13 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

At around 20:00 on January 6, 1992, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving of freight cars in Seoul (vehicle number omitted) and is driving the said freight cars in order to drive from the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front part of the Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, at about 50 kilometers in speed from the front side of Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si. The Defendant found the first line of the second line from the front side of Sinpo-si to the front side of Sinpo-si. In the future, the Defendant’s vehicle number omitted to the front side of the driver’s (vehicle number omitted) of the Marnpo-si, who was running along the central line by breaking the steering gear to the port.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the facts charged in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Of the above facts charged, a public prosecutor is indicted with regard to the injury caused by occupational negligence in violation of the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the provision of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act and the provision of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the central line under the Road Traffic Act is installed in the vicinity of the location of the instant traffic accident.

First, as the center line under the Road Traffic Act is installed on the above road, the entry of the actual survey report on the preparation of administrative affairs by the judicial police officer, as stated above, was first stated on the approximately six pages (six pages of the investigation record) near the point of accident, and was stated as the "finite without yellow lines," and the correction was made by using the modified part of the above stated part, and without permission, to be "on the spot", and then without permission, the entry after the correction is not believed in the record.

Rather, according to the above and the protocol of statement of the non-indicted person, etc. prior to the revision, the contents of the above road are as follows: the above road is extended to the 4th line of the existing distance from Ansan City to Ansan City, and the extension of the road is not yet completed, and the center line under the Road Traffic Act is not yet installed under the Road Traffic Act, and it is de facto as the boundary, using it as the second line of the existing road of Ansan City, using it as the second line of the area from Ansan City, and using the newly constructed two lines as the road as the side of the Ansan City, and using it as the second line of the area from Ansan City, and there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant committed the central line installed under the Road Traffic Act, thereby causing the traffic accident of this case.

Therefore, the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents does not fall under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and thus, it cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the main sentence of Article 3

However, according to the agreement prepared by the defendant and the victim of the above traffic accident, the victim may recognize the fact that he expressed his wish not to punish the defendant on January 25, 1992 after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against the victim is subject to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the prosecuted part of this case is dismissed

B. Determination of facts charged in violation of the Road Traffic Act

This is a crime falling under Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intention under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the agreement submitted on January 25, 1992, the victim clearly withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant. Thus, the part of the prosecution in this case is dismissed under Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Noh Jae-in